The reason why the picture of the front page of the Cambridge Chronicle is on the right is here is because Anthony Galluccio was a State Senator who was involved in a hit and run accident and then sentenced to jail this week for violating his probation for having alcohol on his breath. So you can see the irony of Cambridge Wine and Spirit’s sticker advertising a 20% off sale.

Now I don’t expect that this will generate any anger toward the Chronicle or Cambridge Wine and Spirits, just a few chuckles, but the benefit of that advertising is compromised. I assume that the Chronicle will be reimbursing them for the ad or more likely a discount on their next ad in the paper for this inappropriate placement. Then again it’s been awhile since my freshmen advertising classes and maybe the wall between editorial and advertising forbids that. But if there is a refund or discount, does that really resolve the issue? Yesterday I read the following quote from Ramon DeLeon of the YouTube Domino’s delivery apology:

“The only way to put out a social media fire is with social media water.”

With that in mind what kind of fire is put out by a discounted ad?

I happen to patronize Cambridge Wine and Spirits. They have a great selection, helpful folks, decent prices and the owner seems like a nice guy. Therefore I offer this unsolicited idea to them.

First, apologize. It wasn’t your fault, but your name is on the sticker so be accountable. It doesn’t need to be a YouTube video like Domino’s  (though that would work), but maybe a letter to the editor in the Chronicle. Anthony Galluccio is a well liked politician in Cambridge; he grew up here, went to public schools, was a city counselor and Mayor of Cambridge before becoming a State Senator. Wish him the best in getting the help that he clearly needs. Then praise the work of a local chapter of AA or treatment center.  Show that you are a caring and active member of the community.  Then take that refund or discount that the Chronicle gives you and donate it to center that you recognize. Don’t brag about it, just do it.  If anyone asks, well that’s up to you.

More advertising will not resolve this front page news placement screwup. This is a news fire. It needs news water and that’s what helping other people get the help with alcohol abuse that Galluccio didn’t is.

The Right Water For The Right Fire is a post from: Trumblog

Sara Taylor is the former political director of the Bush White House and she has one idea [about what will be next in harnessing grass-roots political support via technology]. “We’re at a place in the country where almost everybody has a cell phone, but not many people have a smartphone, meaning a video-enabled phone. But that will change over the next three to four or five years” and by then Taylor says if you are a mom with two kids who cares about education “a smart, forward-leaning campaign will know that. They will have had you sign up into their system and they’ll be able to serve you advertising, via a text message that links right to video, with your candidate speaking, in a beautiful video, about the importance of education reform. That, I think, is most likely to be the next iteraction of new technology .”

Obama Looks To Harness Grass-Roots Support
by Mara Liasson Morning Edition on NPR 11/12/2008

It feels like since the election news has been either deciphering the Obama campaign or prognosticating about the Obama administration and last week on Morning Edition there was a piece on technology and social media discussing what Obama would do with his enormous database of volunteers collected and motivated to action online.  In the report, Sara Taylor from the Bush White House envisioned a country of soccer/ hockey moms, smart phone in hard having exactly the right message targeted to them.  That’s not far fetched and I’m sure that in 2012 it will happen.  But if that is what Taylor learned from the Obama campaign then the Republicans should prepare themselves for a longer absence from the oval office than they think.  What they should learn is exactly what I told the radio “It’s not about advertising it’s about conversation.”

Targeting audiences is nothing new.  Direct mail has been doing it for years.  And targeting an individual voter/ consumer through their smart phone, a highly personalized medium that can deliver faster a more dynamic video message, would clearly have a significant impact.  But it’s still a one-way communication.  Taylor’s not seeing the opportunity in the revolutionary way that Obama used the internet this election.

Obama succeeded because he engaged in a conversation with his audience, a two-way communication.  He didn’t just send messages, he encouraged a response.  And the response that he got was amazing.  New websites, blogs, songs on YouTube and artwork about Obama appeared every day.  My wife and I wondered if any candidate had ever inspired such art before.  Probably not, but even if they had the internet allowed the artists to promote their art and social media helped to spread the word and make it viral.

Supporters shared the latest inspired reaction to Obama via email, Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc. and those recipients forwarded them along again. The echo chamber got louder and louder.  A message from a politician is one thing.  A message from a friend about that politician is quite another.  Why?  Because your friend is trustworthy, or an expert on some issue, or you just want to be like her.  Whatever the reason, hearing about the campaign from a friend is a powerful and persuasive message.  And messages from many friends about the same politician becomes a movement.

Understanding what audiences want and how to reach that particular segment is tough. Smart phones can make that easier. But the real revolution will be the mom with a smart phone who records a rally and sends to her friend’s phone the part of her candidate’s speech that resonates with her.  That’s an even more targeted message from a trusted source.  That’s the message that changes minds and inspires action. That’s what leads to a historic election result.

Wanting Conversation not Advertising is a post from: Trumblog

Ouch! Now I’ll admit that some of the websites that I’ve produced may have been unimpressive, but none of them were for the leadership of the free world.

Online Media Daily found that only 36% of people who visited Hillary Clinton’s site had a more favorable view of her after visiting her website HillaryClinton.com as compared to results higher than 50% for the websites of Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. John McCain’s site faired a little bit worse with improving his image for 44% of visitors.

Person Mike Huckabee

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

HillaryClinton.com Not Polling Well is a post from: Trumblog

Borrell Associates have identified another justification for 9% share of political ad dollars going to the Internet as opposed to 60% for television.

Older, affluent voters remain the core of candidates’ political support, according to the Borrell report. The best way to reach the over-55 crowd is still TV, since most of that group spends less than an hour per week online.

“Given the demographic realities of the electorate, today’s heavy reliance on TV as the medium of choice among political advertisers makes perfect sense,” according to the Borrell study.

The study also agrees with Evan Tracey’s assessment that the internet is not an effective messaging tool for undecided voters.

Sure, you fish where the fish are, but what about effectiveness? Do these other mediums deliver messages as cost effectively or are campaigns paying to reach the wrong people? I’d love to know conversion rates for each media type and the cost per conversion. Our 9% of the ad dollars should be a point of pride that we in online marketing provide the best value and are doing more with less.

Another Rationale for Lower Online Spending for Politicians is a post from: Trumblog

Evan Tracey, chief operating officer for TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG offers the following observation on why politicians will not spend as much on online advertising as they do print, Television, radio, etc.

“[Campaigns] don’t find [online] to be an effective messaging tool for undecided voters late in the race, which is when most of the money is spent on media.”

Personally, I’m surprised that this is true and would love to know where that understanding comes from. I am glad to know though that the rational is based on an understanding of the target audience rather than cluelessly missing out on an opportunity. Tracy does acknowledge that campaigns have taken advantage of YouTube and MySpace to interact with voters and exploit the web for fund raising. His comments were made at the UBS 35th Annual Global Media and Communications conference.

One Rationale for Lower Online Spending for Politicians is a post from: Trumblog

Yahoo and the Associated Press teamed up for the first in a series of polls on the presidential candidates. Some of that data is below, but what I found interesting was this.

Unlike most Internet polls, this one is nationally representative because people are first contacted using traditional telephone polling methods, and are then followed using online interviews. People selected for the study who do not already have Internet access are provided with Internet access for free.

I don’t know if that is a novel approach or not, but clearly it avoids the mob rules and demographic slants that most internet polls have and may reap the benefits of greater access to the interviewees and deeper questioning.

The full results are available as are graphics and comment on the results.

Yahoo! AP Internet Presidential Poll is a post from: Trumblog

It’s not as if search engine marketing is cutting edge anymore or that that only a select few know about it. SEM is mainstream and that’s why I’m puzzled about the results of Rimm-Kaufman Group’s report Search and Politics ’08.

According to the study:

• less than 50% of the Presidential Candidates are using SEM, and
• more Republican candidates are using SEM than Democratic candidates.

I’m surprised about the Democrats not taking advantage of search because of past performances of Democratic candidates online and activity on social networking sites. They just seem to get it better. The fact that SEM hasn;t taken off for politicians is puzzling because SEM is so cost effective (only paying for actual clicks), so targeted (the SEM campaign can be developed where the intent of searcher’s query can be addressed on the landing page), and so easy (the big 2 Google and Yahoo!, and most other engines, make it simple to set up and manage an account). It seems like a natural for a cash strapped, individual focussed political campaign.

I work with brands and search so I’m going to look at candidates the same way. Obama is a brand, Giuliani is a brand, Clinton is a brand, Romney is a brand, Edwards is a brand. They have brand messages. They hope that voters react positively to that brand and the expectations of what that brand will deliver and therefore select that brand with their vote.

The beauty, or problem, with how we elect a president is that the low turnout for primary elections leads to the most committed members of each party having alot of power in selecting the candidate for each party. That power comes from their turning out at the polls because they are actively engaged in the political process.

When a consumer is actively engaged with an issue that a brand is a participant in, that is a surefire way to make a connection. But beyond that, an actively searching consumer is also one who is in the sales cycle, someone looking to buy product or a service. That’s why search works and why it would work with these engaged voters.

Let’s say that the primary issue that I’m using to select a candidate to vote for is global warming? I’m not looking for information on a candidate, but am searching for information on the issue that I am passionate about. An ad is served to me from a candidate. That tells me that the candidate is thinking about this issue and appealing to people like me. If I click through, their well selected landing page describing their position on the issue hopefully appeals to me and earns my vote, or at least a favorable impression of the candidate. I now know that the issue that this candidate cares about the same issue I do, wants my vote, I may even know their position on the issue and because of my interest in a particular issue and awareness that there is a candidate to vote for I am also more likely to vote. Slam dunk, and I haven’t even gotten to targeting!

I live in Massachusetts and I see campaign ads. Why? Not because my vote will have much to do with the selecting of my party’s candidate, thanks to my state’s primary. being the 34th. I see those ads because candidates are trying to hit southern New Hampshire and that means hitting me too. With SEM you can target exactly who you want to reach. I can make sure that my ads are displayed in New Hampshire and Iowa and only those states. Again I only pay for the clicks and impressions that I am trying to reach.

The benefits are so clear and yet I don’t see why more politicians don’t get it. But then I have clients who don’t either.

Why Are Candidates Dropping The Ball With Search? is a post from: Trumblog

Spartan Internet Consulting Corporation has an interesting index of political performance which scores the candidates and parties based on their online activity and ranks them in comparison to each other.

Each of the 650 factors is assigned a specific weight, based on how far reaching and reliable the source data is. For example, a user who posts an image on a highly trafficked networking site or writes a blog that receives a large number of comments is weighted higher than less engaged means like a Google search.

Last week’s index shows Barack Obama clearly leading the field with Ron Paul and Hilary Clinton fighting it out for second place. Democratic candidates clearly out pace Republican candidates in the index, but why is up for debate.

Dems Leading in Campaign 2008 Online Performance Index is a post from: Trumblog

Americans trust bloggers more than the Congress, Senate or the Media in general according to a recent survey by BIGresearch. That statement is going to get the press and what got my attention, but the good news is that over 70% of people don’t trust any of them.

Why is that good news? I am in favor of a healthy dose of skepticism. But when I thought about people trusting bloggers, who may provide no references or credentials for their news or punditry, more than politicians who in comparison have very open records on who contributes, how they spend, who they meet with, what they say and how they vote, not to mention the check on their trustworthiness provided by the media. That concerned me. The same is true for the mainstream media who are kept relatively unbiased or clearly identified as partisan by media consumers.

That bloggers seem more trustworthy just hit me as short sighted. How can the individual blogger, who you may know nothing about be more trustworthy than other groups with plenty of disclosure on who they are are what they do? Maybe doing the homework on politicians is just too difficult? Maybe a blogger’s independence and clear point of view gives the appearance of trustworthiness? Maybe the interactive nature of the medium bestows a level of trust? Maybe”trust” is defined differently for each group? Maybe trusting a blogger is different from trusting a mainstream news story is the truth or that a politician will do what they say regardless of what we know about the source?

But then the fact that more than 70% of those surveyed don’t trust the president, congress, senate, media or bloggers made it clear that the slightly higher trust in bloggers is overwhelmed by a high level of general distrust in all of them. That is the news in this survey and it gives me hope. Skepticism is alive an well.

Bloggers More Trustworthy Than Politicians is a post from: Trumblog

I love this quote from Bill Tancer, general manager of global research at Hitwise.

“The online focus of the last presidential election was all about blogs and their effectiveness in communicating with potential voters, in the 2008 Presidential election, the Internet’s role is changing from a one way communication channel to a two-way conversation enabled by social networking.”

The quote was in response to the data that traffic from specific Web 2.0 websites, including MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr, increased 205% from January 2007 to August. Ron Paul received the most traffic followed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but if that has to do with being a web darling, a popular candidate or exploiting Web 2.0 is up for debate.

Bill Tancer is exactly right, but it is up to the candidates to take advantage of the electorate’s desire for this conversation that social networking facilitates and not squander the opportunity. Making friends is one thing, but energizing them to get out the vote is quite another.

Can Candidates Capitalize on Web 2.0? is a post from: Trumblog